2026:JHHC:17828-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI --------- Death Reference No.03 of 2025 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2025 and order of sentence dated 25.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandil in Sessions Trial No.196/2019, arising out of Chandil P.S. Case No. 23 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.244 of 2019] -------- The State of Jharkhand (through Shidhu Soren) … … Prosecution Versus Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru, son of late Mangal Manjhi, resident of Purisili, Kapali, PO: Kapali, PS Chandil/Kapali, District Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. … … Respondent With Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1343 of 2025 ------ Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru, aged about 32 years, son of late Mangal Manjhi, resident of Purisili, Kapali, PO: Kapali, PS Chandil (Kapali OP), District Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ….. For the Convict : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate; Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor ….. C.A.V. on: 01.05.2026 Pronounced on:18/06/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, facing the death sentence, and learned counsel for the State, in the death reference. 2. As this death reference and the instant appeal arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. This death reference and the connected Criminal Appeal arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2025 and order of 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 2 sentence dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandil in Sessions Trial Case No. 196 of 2019, arising out of Chandil PS case No. 23 of 2019, G.R. No. 244 of 2019, whereby, the sole appellant Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru has been sentenced to the capital punishment along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand), for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, directing him death sentence by hanging and further in default of fine R.I. for 6 months. He has further been sentenced to undergo two years for the offence u/s 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, whereas the death reference is made by the learned Trial Court for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon the sole appellant, namely, Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru. Factual Matrix 6. The prosecution case was instituted on the fardbayan of the informant Sidhu Soren Soren (P.W.-6) recorded on 23.02.2019 at 14:30 hrs., at M.G.M., Hospital, Jamshedpur. 7. Informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6), in his fardbeyan, has stated that while he and his mother were sleeping in their house on the night of 23.02.2019, at about 04:00 a.m., the accused Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru (appellant herein), armed with an axe, came and began striking the door. At that time, the accused was stating that he had killed Ravi Manjhi, Kalpana 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 3 @ Parwati, Jiten @ Jitendra Manjhi, Suresh Manjhi, and Puresh Manjhi, and further threatened that he would kill the informant also. Saying so, the accused forcefully struck the door with the axe. 8. Informant further stated that when he opened the door, then accused Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru attacked him with an axe to which, informant caught his hand, then, axe slipped from his hand. 9. Thereafter, accused Chunnu Manjhi @ Putr, took dabli, but in the meantime informant fled away and entered into the house of his neighbour namely Bhagan Tudu (P.W.-9) and closed the door. Then, accused restrained informant’s mother Guruwari Majhian and assaulted her. Informant further stated that on hearing halla, neighbours came and informed the police. Police came there and apprehended the accused Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru. Accused Chunnu Manjhi was telling that he has set the entire house on fire and committed murder of Ravi Manjhi and his family members and he was also telling that the informant and others family members were asking Rs. 20,000/- back, which was given to him. 10. Informant further stated that accused Chunnu Manjhi had assaulted his mother Guruwari Majhian, with an axe and injured her. It has further been alleged that the accused has set house on fire, and also set ablaze his motorcycle, cycle and other articles. It has further been alleged that the accused, apart from setting fire to his own house, also burnt the room of Ravi Manjhi (deceased) and one room belonging to Rai Muni Manjhiyan (P.W.-5). The accused is further stated to have broken the asbestos roofing and caused its destruction. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 4 11. On the fardbeyan of informant, Chandil P.S. Case No. 23/2019 dated 23.02.2019 was registered for the offences u/s 325, 307, 436, 302 and 427 of I.P.C. After investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused /appellant for the offences U/Ss. 302, 307, 326, 427, 440 and 506 of IPC. 12. On 14.05.2019, cognizance was taken against accused/appellant for the offences U/Ss. 302, 307, 326, 427, 440 and 506 IPC and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 13. Thereafter, charges U/Ss. 302, 307, 326, 427, 440 and 506 of IPC were framed against the appellant which were read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 14. In order to establish charges levelled against accused person, prosecution had examined altogether 11 witnesses which are as follows: PW-1 Shambhu Soren PW-2 Chaita Soren PW-3 Harendra Singh PW-4 Uttam Singh PW-5 Rai Muni Manjhiyan PW-6 Sidhu Soren (informant) PW-7 Dr. Vishnudeo Prasad Sah PW-8 Ropna Ram Kanshi(investigating Officer) PW-9 Bhagan Tudu PW-10 Bablu Tudu PW-11 Hiralal Mundu 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 5 15. Further the prosecution in order to prove the charges has exhibited the following documents: Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description 1. Ext. P-1/P.W.6 Signature of informant P.W.6 on fardbeyan 2. Ext. P-2/P.W.7 Signature of P.W.7 on postmortem report 3. Ext. P-2/1/P.W.7 Signature of P.W.7 on postmortem report of Ravi Manjhi 4. Ext. P-2/2/P.W.7 Signature of P.W.7 on postmortem report of Kalpana Devi 5. Ext. P-2/3/P.W.7 Signature of P.W.7 on postmortem report of Jiten Manjhi 6. Ext. P-2/4/P.W.7 Signature of P.W.7 on postmortem report of Suresh Manjhi 7. Ext. P-1/1/P.W.8 Whole fardbeyan 8. Ext. P-1/2//P.W.8 Forwarding report in fardbeyan 9. Ext. P-1/3/P.W.8 Identified the signature on endorsement on written report 10. Ext. P-3/P.W.8 The formal F.I.R. 11. Ext. P-4/P.W.8 The inquest report of Ravi Manjhi 12. Ext. P-4/1/P.W.8 The inquest report of Kalpana Manjhi 13 Ext. P-4/2/P.W.8 The inquest report of Jiten 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 6 Manjhi 14. Ext. P-4/3/P.W.8 The inquest report of Suresh Manjhi 15. Ext. P-4/4/P.W.8 The inquest report of Paresh Manjhi 16. Ext. P-5/P.W.8 The carbon copy of challan of Ravi Manjhi 17. Ext. P-5/1/P.W.8 The carbon copy of challan of Kalpana Devi 18. Ext. P-5/2/P.W.8 The carbon copy of challan of Jiten Manjhi 19. Ext. P-5/3/P.W.8 The carbon copy of challan of Suresh Manjhi 20. Ext. P-5/4/P.W.8 The carbon copy of challan of Paresh Manjhi 21. Ext. P-6/P.W.8 Identified the memo of arrest of Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru 22. Ext. P-7/P.W.8 Signature on seizure list 23. Ext. P-8/P.W.8 Identified the signature on inspection report 24. Ext. P-9/P.W.8 The confessional statement of Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 7 25. Ext. P-10/P.W.8 Identified the acknowledgment report 26. Ext. P-11/P.W.8 Identified the letter no. 127/2019 dt. 28.02.2019 (Total 3 pages) 27. Ext. P-12 The SFSL report no. 444/2019 dt. 23.04.2025 28. Ext. P-7/1/P.W.9 Signature of PW-9 on seizure list 29. Ext. P-6/1/P.W.7 Signature of PW-9 on memo of arrest of Chhunu Manjhi 30. Ext. P-7/2/P.W.10 Signature of PW10 on seizure list 31. Ext. P-6/2/P.W.10 Signature of PW10 on memo of arrest of Chhunu Manjhi @ Putru 32. Ext. M.O.-1 A wooden box 33. Ext. M.O.-II Yellow colour half sleeve T-shirt 34. Ext. M.O.-III Maroon colour half pant 35. Ext. M.O.-IV Torn pink with yellow and black coloured stripped Saree piece 36. Ext. M.O.-V Yellow colour torn blouse 37. Ext. M.O.-II/I Black and Maroon colour torned and burnt T-shirt 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 8 38. Ext. M.O.-VI White colour torned half shirts with stains 39. Ext. M.O.-II/2 Black and white checked torned T-shirt 40. Ext. M.O.-VII Black colour track suite pant 41. Ext. M.O.-II/3 Ganji brown colour T-shirt 42. Ext. M.O.-VIII Tangi 7a 43. Ext. M.O.-VIII/1 Tangi 7b 44. Ext. M.O.-VIII/2 Tangi 7c 45. Ext. M.O.-IX Blue colour cloth piece 46. Ext. M.O.-IX/1 Green and red colour cloth piece 47. Ext. M.O.-IX/2 Yellow colour cloth piece 48. Ext. M.O.-IX/3 Yellow and black colour cloth piece 49. Ext. M.O.-IX/4 Yellow colour cloth piece 50. Ext. M.O.-IX/5 Brown yellow cloth piece 51. Ext. M.O.-IX/6 Yellow green colour cloth piece 52. Ext. M.O.-IX/7 Maroon grey colour cloth piece 53. Ext. M.O.-X Plastic Dibba containing semi solid reddish brown material 54. Ext. M.O.-XI Stained Gauge 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 9 55. Ext. M.O.-IX/8 Stained cotton piece-10 56. Ext. M.O.-IX/9 Stained cloth piece-11(a) 57. Ext. M.O.-IX/10 Stained cotton piece-11(b) 16. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused/appellant found the charges proved against the appellant under Sections 302 and 427 of the IPC. 17. Accordingly, the appellant had been convicted under Sections 302 and 427 of the IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. 18. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is subject matter of instant appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant: 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 20. The following grounds have been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant in assailing the impugned judgment of conviction: - (i) It is submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. The informant is also not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence of murder. (ii) It is further submitted that PW-2 has deposed to have heard that the appellant is mentally unfit. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 10 (iii) It is also submitted that motive behind the occurrence is also not clear though there is allegation in the oral evidence of land dispute. (iv) The prosecution has not proved the chain of circumstances and the circumstances are not linked and complete. (v) The learned trial court has erred in observing- “the act of the accused going to the house of the informant and concealing himself in the house after the incident shows his conduct immediately after the incident.” (vi) It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has not taken the finger print of the accused on the seized axes. (vii) There is no injury report of the informant or his mother on record. (viii) There is no seizure of remains of burnt motorcycle on record. (ix) The learned trial court has erred in observing- “the statement as well as the conduct forms the part of same relevant fact and is admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act.” (x) It is submitted that the evidences on record are not sufficient so as to construed that the same is relevant fact forming part of same transaction as there is no consistent trustworthy evidence that appellant was seen present at the alleged place of occurrence with axe in his hand. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 11 (xi) The learned trial court has erred in placing reliance upon Section 106 of the Evidence Act though the prosecution has failed in its primary burden of proving the alleged offence. (xii) The learned trial court has erred in relying upon SFSL report, which is not conclusive or definite. (xiii) The benefit of exception of Section 84 of the Indian Penal code has not been properly appreciated. (xiv) It is submitted that the finding of land dispute being the motive behind the alleged occurrence is also not supported by consistent evidence. (xv) The statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been properly appreciated (xvi) The sentence awarding capital punishment is not justified even otherwise the case would not fall within the purview of rarest of rare case. (xvii) It is further submitted that while awarding the sentence, there is no consideration of the mitigating factors and, thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and contrary to the materials on record and is liable to be set aside. Submission of the learned P.P for the State: 21. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted by taking the following grounds in defending the impugned judgment: 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 12 (i) Learned counsel for the State submitted that the case in hand relates to brutal murder of five persons by axe and the case comes within the category of rarest of rare cases, and as such it is a fit case in which the death sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court be confirmed. (ii) Learned State counsel has submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the incident took place in the late night and the accused was only person who was present at the place of the occurrence. The accused has himself confessed that he had committed murder of five persons and after committing the murder he concealed himself in the house from where the accused was apprehended. (iii) It is further stated that the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of circumstances in the case of circumstantial evidence. The accused after committing the murder of the deceased went to the house of other victims of the case and has stated about the murder. He has also injured the informant and his mother. So, in all circumstances the prosecution has ably proved that the accused is the only person who had committed murders. Hence, the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the appellant beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt and the accused is fit to be convicted. 22. Learned counsel for the State, based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgement needs no interference. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 13 Analysis 23. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 24. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined altogether 11 witnesses. The depositions of prosecution witnesses are being referred herein- 25. P.W.-1 Shambhu Soren is the brother of the accused Chunnu Manjhi. He has deposed that on 23.02.2019 at around 4:00 am accused Chunnu Manjhi had killed his brother Ravi Manjhi and his three sons by an axe. He had also lit on fire a motorcycle, house and some articles and he had pushed his mother. The police had arrested the accused Chunnu Manjhi and he was telling that he will kill all the remaining persons, when he will return back. 26. In his cross-examination, P.W.-1 stated that on the day of the incident his leg was fractured and he was sleeping in the house. He had not seen Chunnu Manjhi burning bike, house and other articles but had seen the articles burning. He cannot say who had taken Chunnu Manjhi to Mental Hospital. After the accused had committed murder, then they heard halla that accused Chunnu Manjhi had committed the incident. He has stated that they are five brothers and eldest among them is Budhrai Soren, who is dead, second is Ravi Soren(deceased), then he himself, fourth brother is Som Manjhi and fifth one is accused Chunnu Manjhi (appellant herein). P.W.-1 further stated that Ravi Soren (deceased), had sold one katha of land for one lakh rupees and money was distributed among the five brothers amounting to Rs.20,000/- each. All the brothers reside separately but their lands are common. His mother stays in the house of Budhrai and adjacent to the 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 14 house, there is house of Bhogen Tudu and Rabindra Pramanik. He had not given any statement earlier and for the first time he was deposing in the court. 27. P.W.- 2 Chaita Soren has also deposed that on 23.02.2019 at around 4:00 p.m., when they were sleeping Chunnu Manjhi had killed Ravi Manjhi, his three children and wife by an axe. Chunnu Manjhi had assaulted his grandmother as a result her waist was fractured. Accused had also pushed his grandmother. When he woke up at 4:00 a.m., and entered the room where Chunnu Manjhi had committed murder, there he saw axe in the hand of Chunnu Manjhi. Chunnu Manjhi had chased him but he fled away. Chunnu Manjhi was telling that when he will return, he will kill others. Chunnu Manjhi had also burnt the motorcycle, house and household articles. 28. In his cross-examination P.W.-2 stated that at the time of the incident he was sleeping so he had not witnessed the incident. When he woke up on halla of fire, he found the house of Ravi Uncle burning. Prior to the incident they were having good relationship with Chunnu Manjhi. Two weeks before the incident, his all uncle had sold a land to someone for way, and all had received their share of money. He had heard that Chunnu Manjhi was mentally unfit and was taken to Ranchi but cannot say who took him. He had not given any statement before the police. 29. P.W.-3 Harendra Singh had stated in his evidence that on 23.02.2019, he was in his house at Purisili. In the morning, he came to know from villagers that Chunnu Manjhi had killed his brother Ravi Manjhi, his wife Kalpana Majhian and their three children Jiten Manjhi, Puresh Manjhi and Suresh Manjhi by an axe and he had burnt their houses. When he went 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 15 there, he saw Ravi Manjhi and his whole family were lying dead. Then, they informed about the incident to the police. Later, he came to know that there was dispute regarding land among the brothers. 30. In his cross-examination P.W.-3 stated that he cannot say as to who told him about the incident and he has no personal knowledge of it. He had gone to the place of occurrence at 6 am in the morning and at that time Bhagan Tudu, Badal Tudu and 8 to 10 females were present at the place of occurrence. The police had recorded his statement on 23.02.2019 at 11 am. The accused was mentally fit and he had no knowledge that brother of the accused had taken the accused to Ranch for treatment. He has no personal knowledge about the land dispute of the accused. Accused is a co-villager so, he knew the accused. 31. P.W.-4 Uttam Singh has stated in his evidence that the incident took place in the night of 22-23.02.2019. He was sleeping in the house in the same village and on the next day he came to know that there was murder of five persons in the Pudisili Sadar Tola. He went to the house of Ravi Manjhi (deceased) and saw five dead bodies and the person who had committed the incident was hiding inside. The murder was committed by an axe. Ravi Manjhi, his wife Kalpana Devi and their three children Jiten Manjhi, Puresh Manjhi and Suresh Manjhi were murdered. Chunnu Manjhi was arrested by the police. 32. In the cross-examination P.W.4 stated that Sardar Tola is 1½ kilometer North of his house. He had reached the house of accused Chunnu Manjhi at 5:00 am. The dead bodies were in the room of Ravi Manjhi. When he reached there, then after 15-20 minutes, administration came there. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 16 Harendra Singh Sardar, who is the mukhiya, had told him that the accused is hiding inside. The house of the accused Chunnu Manjhi is 10 steps from the place from where the dead bodies were recovered. He does not know whether Chunnu Manjhi is mentally unfit. The police had taken his statement. He does not know whether there was a land dispute between the accused and their brothers. 33. P.W.-5 Rai Muni Majhiyan, is the sister-in-law (babhi) of the informant. She had stated in her evidence that 4 years ago accused Chunnu Manjhi had cut Ravi Majhi, Parvati Majhian, Suresh Manjhi, Paresh Manjhi and Jiten Manjhi, with an axe. Her mother-in-law Guruwari Majhian was also assaulted as a result her waist was fractured. Chunnu Manjhi had burnt three houses. Accused Chunnu Manjhi had burnt her two houses and motorcycle of Sidhu Soren (informant) was also burnt. She was locked in a room and accused Chunnu Manjhi had also broke the Asbestos sheet. 34. In her cross-examination P.W.-5 stated that her parental home is at Deoghar and it took one hour to go from her parental home to her matrimonial home. In her matrimonial home in village Purisili, she resides with her mother-in-law, brother-in-law Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6) and son and they reside in one house. The incident is of 4-4.30 am and at that time all were sleeping. Accused Chunnu Manjhi is not insane and he had not gone to Ranchi. They were having good relationship with the family of Chunnu Manjhi. 35. P.W.-6 Sidhu Soren, is the informant of the case. Informant has stated in his evidence that on 23.02.2019, he was sleeping with his mother in his house at Purisili and in the morning at around 4:00 am, accused Chunnu 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 17 Manjhi came to his house and started hitting the door and was telling that he has killed Ravi Manjhi, Parvati Manjhi and their children Jiten Manjhi, Suresh Manjhi and Paresh Manjhi by an axe and he threatened to kill him. When he opened the door, then, Chunnu Manjhi gave blow of axe to which he caught his hand. He received the injury on his head and was treated in M.G.M. hospital. Thereafter, Chunnu Manjhi came with dawli, then he ran away and entered in the house of his neighbor Bhagan Tudu and locked the door. Accused Chunnu Manjhi finding his mother Guruwari Majhian alone surrounded her and assaulted her as a result there was fracture on her waist and leg and she was also treated in M.G.M. Hospital. The police came and apprehended Chunnu Manjhi. Chunnu Manjhi was saying that he had lit the house on fire and had killed Ravi Manjhi and family of Ravi Manjhi and will kill them also. Informant had identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.P-1/P.W.6. 36. In his cross-examination informant stated that accused Chunnu Manjhi is his own elder brother. He is immediate neighbour of Chunnu Manjhi. Chunnu Manjhi was saying that he had killed Ravi Manji and his family members but he (informant) had not witnessed the incident of killing them. He had concealed himself in the house of Bhagan Tadu and came out at 7:00 a.m., when the police came. The police had read over him, the content of the fardbeyan, after which he had signed on it. 37. P.W. 7 Dr. Vishnudeo Prasad Sah deposed that on 23.02.2019, he was posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Seraikella. On that day at 01:00 p.m., he conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 18 Puresh Manjhi, Male aged about 11 yeas S/O Ravi Manjhi. On examination, he found following ante-mortem injuries present over body: - A. External finding: 1. These is deep cut injury over the front of neck measuring 8 x 6 x 2 cm in diameter with tracheal bone fracture. 2. There is also another cut injury over the back of left ear measuring 4 x 2x 1 cm in diameter. B. Internal finding: 1. Brain and meninges intact pale, and congested; 2. Lungs- both lungs is intact and pale; 3. Heart- is intact and chamber empty; 4. Stomach-intact and contain undigested food particle; 5. Small intestine- is intact and contain semi digested food; 6. Large intestine- is intact and contain faecal matter and gases; 7. Livers- is intact and pale; 8. Spleen-is intact and pale; 9. Kidney- Both kidneys are intact and pale; Time since death-within 5 to 12 hours Object used-hard, heavy and sharp object, Cause of death- Cardio-respiratory failure due to haemorrhagic and traumatic shock. The post-mortem report of the deceased Puresh Manjhi was marked as P-2/PW-7. 38. On the same day Doctor conducted the post-mortem of Ravi Manjhi and found following injuries: - External Examination: There is deep cut injury over the right perital region with fracture corresponding bone measuring 13 x 4 x 2 cm in diameter, otherwise there is no external injuries seen in whole body. Internal Examination: - 1) Brain and meaningeses- intact and pale. ii) Lungs- Both lungs intact and pale, iii) Heart- is intact and chamber empty, iv) Stomach -is intact and contain undigested food particles, v) Small intestine intact and contain semi digested food, vi) Large intestine- intact and contain faecal matter and gases, vii) Liver-intact and pale, viii) Spleen-intact and pale, ix) Kidney-both kidney intact and pale, Time since death 5 to 12 hours. Object used-hard heavy and sharp object, Cause of death-cardio-respiratory arrest due to hemorrhagic and neurogenic 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 19 shock The post-mortem report of the deceased Ravi Manjhi was marked as P-2/1PW-7. 39. On the same day Doctor conducted the post-mortem of Kalpana Devi, 40 years old W/o Ravi Manjhi, and found following injuries - External Examination: - 1) There is deep cut injury over the right side of nose measuring 12 x 4 x 5 cm in diameter, with fracture meaxillary bone; ii) There is another cut injury just below the right ear measuring 2 x 2 x1 cm in diameter, iii) There is 3rd cut injury over the occipital region measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cm in diameter, Internal Examination: - i) Brain and meaningeses- intact and pale and congested, ii) Lungs- Both lungs intact and pale, iii) Heart is intact and chamber empty, iv) Stomach is intact and contain undigested food particles, v) Small intestine- intact and contain semi digested food, vi) Large intestine intact and contain faecal matter and gases, vii) Liver intact and pale, viii) Spleen-intact and pale, ix) Kidney-both kidney intact and pale, Time since death 5 to 12 hours. Object used-hard heavy and sharp object, Cause of death-cardio-respiratory arrest due to hemorrhagic and neurogenic shock. The post-mortem report of the deceased of Kalpana Devi was marked as P-2/2/PW-7. 40. On the same day Doctor conducted the post-mortem of Jiten Manjhi, 15 years old S/o Ravi Manjhi and found injuries as follows- External Examination:- 1) There is deep cut injury over the front of neck with trachean bone fracture measuring 8 x 6 x 2 cm in diameter, ii) There is burn injury over the both hand abdomen and left leg. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 20 iii) There is also cut injury over the left ear measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cm in diameter, Internal Examination:- i) Brain and meaningeses- intact and pale and congested. ii) Lungs-Both lungs intact and pale, iii) Heart- is intact and chamber empty. iv) Stomach is intact and contain undigested food particles, v) Small intestine- intact and contain semi digested food, vi) Large intestine-intact and contain faecal matter and gases, vii) Liver intact and pale, viii) Spleen-intact and pale, ix) Kidney-both kidney intact and pole, Time since death 5 to 12 hours Object used-hard heavy and sharp object, Cause of death-cardio-respiratory arrest due to hemorrhagic and neurogenic shock The post-mortem report of the deceased of Jiten Manjhi was marked as P-2/3/PW-7. 41. On the same day Doctor had conducted the post-mortem of Suresh Manjhi, 13 years old, S/0 Ravi Manjhi, and found injuries - External Examination:- 1) There is deep cut injury over the occipito perital region measuring 5 x 4 x 2 cm in diameter with bulging out of brain material, ii) There is another incised injury over the occipital region measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cm diameter two in number adjacent to each other of same size, iii) There is also fracture of right shoulder. Internal Examination:- i) Brain and meaningeses intact and pale and congested, ii) Lungs- Both lungs intact and pale, iii) Heart- is intact and chamber empty, iv) Stomach is intact and contain undigested food particles, v) Small intestine-intact and contain semi digested food, vi) Large intestine intact and contain faecal matter and gases, vii) Liver- intact and pale, viii) Spleen-intact and pale, 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 21 ix) Kidney-both kidney intact and pale, Time since death 5 to 12 hours Object used- hard heavy and sharp object Cause of death-cardio-respiratory arrest due to haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock. The post-mortem report of the deceased of Suresh Manjhi was marked as P-2/4/PW-7. 42. P.W.-8 Ropna Ram Kanshi, is the Investigating Officer of the case. Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that on 23.02.2019, he was posted as ASI in Chandil (Kapali) Police Station. ASI Shiv Shankar Prasad had recorded the fardbeyan of Sidhu Soren which is in his handwriting and bears his signature to which he identifies and the fardbeyan was marked as Ext. P-1/1 P.W.8. This fardbeyan was forwarded to Chandil Police Station by Shiv Shankar Prasad and the endorsement on the fardbeyan was marked as Ext.P-1/2 PW8 and the endorsement in the fardbeyan was written by officer-in-charge Ranbijay Singh and bears his signature to which identifies and is marked as Ext.P-1/3/PW.8. The formal F.L.R. is in the pen and bears the signature of officer-in-charge Ranbijay Singh which he identifies and is marked as Ext.P-3/P.W.8. 43. Investigating Officer further stated that after taking over the charge of investigation he perused the inquest report of Ravi Manjhi, Kalpana Majhian, Jiten Manjhi, Suresh Manjhi, Puresh Manjhi which was prepared by ASI Sanjay Kumar Singh and is in his pen and bears his signature to which he identifies and the inquest reports are marked as Ext.P-4/P.W.8, P- 4/1/PW.8, P-4/2/PW.8, P-4/3/P.W.8 and P-4/4P.W.8. The challan of the dead bodies was prepared by ASI Sanjay Kumar Singh and bears his signature to which he identifies and is marked as Ext. P-5/PW.8, P-5/1/ P.W.8, P-5/2/P.W.8, P-5/3/P.W.8, P-5/4/ PW.8. The arrest memo of accused 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 22 Chunnu Manjhi was prepared by ASI Shiv Shankar Prasad and bears his signature to which he identifies and is marked as Ext.P-6/PW.8. In the presence of independent witnesses Bhagan Tudu and Bablu Tudu he had seized three axes with wooden handle, blood stained bed and blood stained clothes of accused Chunnu Manjhi and accordingly prepared the seizure list to which he identifies and is marked as Ext.P-7/P.W.8. 44. Investigating Officer further stated that he visited the place of the occurrence which is 5 in numbers. The first place of occurrence is the house of deceased Ravi Manjhi in Sardar Tola Pudisili. To the north of the courtyard, there is two rooms and in the eastern room the dead bodies of Kalpana Majhian, Jiten Manjhi, Suresh Manjhi and Paresh Manjhi were recovered. In this room bed was found and, on the bed, and on the wall of the room, blood was found. The second place of occurrence is room of Ravi Manjhi and he was sleeping in a cot from where his dead body was recovered. The third place of occurrence is the mud straw house of accused Chunnu Manjhi in which accused had himself set the house on fire. The fourth places of occurrence are the room of Guruwari Manjhi adjacent to it is veranda and in the veranda a motorcycle and bicycle was kept and the accused had lit the same on fire. The fifth place of occurrence is the house of the informant Sidhu Soren, which is house of mud built by wood and straw and here informant’s motorcycle and other articles were also lit on fire by the accused. 45. Investigating Officer further stated that during the investigation he recorded the statement of Shambhu Soren, Chaitan Soren, Guruwari Majhian, Uttam Singh and Harendra Singh and all have supported the case. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 23 In course of investigation, SFSL Team, Ranchi, had seized material and the seized materials were sent to SFSL, Ranchi for examination. The inspection application contained the signature of Dr. Ajay Kumar, the Deputy Director SFSL Ranchi and Dr. Amit Kumar and ASI Shiv Shankar Prasad to which he identifies is marked as Ext.P-8/PW.8. The confessional statement of the accused Chhunu Manjhi was recorded by him and bears his signature to which he identifies and is marked as Ext.P-9/P.W.8. He took the re- statement of informant and the statement of Rai Mani Majhian. The seized articles were sent to SFSL and its receipt is marked as Ext.P-10/P.W.8 and vide Letter No.127/2019 dated 28.02.2019, the seized articles were sent to SFSL which also bears the signature of S.D.J.M. which is in three sheets to which he identifies and is marked as Ext.P-11/P.W.8. On the basis of supervision note and finding the case true he submitted charge sheet against the accused Chhunu Manjhi @ Putru u/s 302,307, 326, 427, 440, 506 and 436 of 1.P.C. Investigating Officer had identified the accused. 46. In his cross-examination Investigating Officer stated that on 23.02.2019 five persons were murdered. After the incident accused Chunnu Manjhi burnt his house and hide himself in the house of his neighbour Bhagan Tudu. The accused was having an axe in his hand which was stained with blood. During the investigation the neighbours of the accused Bhagan Tudu, Sidhu Soren, Rai Mani Soren and Guruwari Soren had stated that accused Chunnu Manjhi had committed the murder by means of axe. 47. P.W.-9 Bhagan Tudu has deposed that on 23.02.2019 at 8:00 am, the police had seized three axes which had wooden handles, blood stained bed of the deceased, blood stained clothes of accused from the house of 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 24 deceased and prepared its seizure list and he had signed on it as seizure list witness to which he identified and is marked as Ext. P-7/1/P.W.-9. On that day the police had arrested accused Chunnu Manjhi and he had signed arrest memo as witness to which he identified and is marked as Ext.P-6/1/P.W.-9. In his cross-examination he stated that he had signed the seizure list at the police station. 48. P.W.-10 Bablu Tudu had deposed that on 23.2.2019 at around 08:00 am, the police had seized three axes which had wooden handles, blood stained bed, blood stained clothes of accused from the house of deceased and prepared its seizure list and he had signed on it as seizure list witness to which he identifies and is marked as Ext. P-7/2/PW10. On that day the police had arrested accused Chunnu Manjhi and he had signed on the arrest memo as witness to which he identifies and is marked as Ext. P-6/2/PW10. In the cross-examination he stated that he has signed the seizure list in the police station. He has no personal knowledge of the incident. 49. P.W.-11 ASI Hira Lal Mundu had produced the materials Exhibits of this case in the court which was received from SFSL Ranchi. The material Exhibits were sealed in white markin cloths in which FSL- 444/2019 was written with black pen. 50. Before proceeding further, it would be fruitful to discuss the admitted facts which has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence. The admitted facts are as follows – i. Five persons of the same family namely Ravi Manjhi (age-50 years) and Kalpana@ Parwati (age-40 years), both spouse and their three sons Jiten Manjhi (age-15 years), Suresh Manjhi 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 25 (age-13years) and Puresh Manjhi (age-11 years), were murdered in the night of 23.02.2019, in their house. ii. There is no eyewitness, to the said occurrence . 51. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect vis-à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by formulating following issues to be answered by this Court: i. Whether there is vital contradiction in the evidence as to discovery of bodies from the first and second place of occurrence i.e. rooms of the house of deceased Ravi Manjhi vis-à-vis inquest reports wherein bodies were shown found in the courtyard of the house? ii. Whether seizure list Ext.P-7/PW8, pertaining to the alleged recovery of three axes and blood stain clothes wore by the accused, said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), was prepared before the information received in the concerned police station? iii. Whether the alleged recovery of three axes vide seizure list Ext.P- 7/PW8, said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), can be treated as cogent evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant in the alleged commission of crime. iv. Whether the alleged recovery of the blood stain clothes (Ext.P- 7/PW8) wore by the accused, said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), can be treated as cogent evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant in the alleged commission of crime. v. Whether acquittal of the appellant for the charges under section 307 and section 326 of IPC for giving axe blow and causing grievous hurt to Guruwari Majhiyan (informant’s mother), has adversely affected the prosecution case? vi. Whether the material as has come in course of trial is sufficient to prove the charge under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code? 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 26 vii. Whether the testimony of P.W.-6 (informant) and P.W.-2 Chaita Soren, is cogent, reliable and trustworthy to convict the appellant? viii. Whether the trial Court, while convicting the appellant, has committed any illegality or not? ix. Whether on the basis of the testimony of oral as well as documentary evidence, can it be said to be a case based on circumstantial evidence or if it based upon the circumstantial evidence the chain is being completed or not? Re: Issue No. (i) 52. Regarding the issue i.e. whether there is vital contradiction in the evidence as to discovery of bodies from the first and second place of occurrence i.e. rooms of the house of deceased Ravi Manjhi vis-à-vis inquest reports wherein bodies were shown found in the courtyard of the house? 53. In this regard this Court has firstly gone into the fardbeyan and testimony of the informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6), who is the brother of the Ravi Manjhi (deceased). But, surprisingly informant neither in his fardbeyan nor in his testimony had stated that when he had seen the dead bodies of five persons, where the dead bodies were laying. 54. Further, P.W.-1 Shambhu Soren, P.W.-2 Chaita Soren and P.W.-5 Rai Muni Manjhiyan, who are brother, nephew and sister-in-law(bhabhi) respectively of the Ravi Manjhi (deceased) had also not stated in their evidence that where they had firstly seen the dead bodies of the five deceased persons. 55. Further, P.W.-3 Harendra Singh and P.W.-4 Uttam Singh, appears to be independent witness. 56. P.W.-3 Harendra Singh had also not stated in his evidence that where the five dead bodies were lying, when he had witnessed the five dead bodies at first instance. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 27 57. But, the other independent witness P.W.-4 Uttam Singh, had specifically stated in his cross-examination that body of the five deceased persons were in the room of Ravi Manjhi (deceased). For ready reference the aforesaid part of testimony of P.W.-4, is being quoted as under: “9. रिव मांझी के ŝम मŐ पाँचों लाश था। मृत ʩİƅ िकस रंग का कपड़ा पहने थे नहीं बता सकते हœ।“ 58. Hence, fact remains that none of the witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-5 including the seizure list witnesses P.W.-9 and P.W.-10, had stated in their evidence that where they had witnessed the dead bodies except P.W.-4 Uttam Singh, who had stated in his cross-examination that body of the five deceased persons were in the room of Ravi Manjhi (deceased). 59. Now, coming to the evidence of the investigating officer Ropna Ram Kanshi (P.W.-8), regarding the place of recovery of the dead bodies of the five deceased persons. 60. The investigating officer had stated in his evidence that in the present case there are five places of occurrence and at first and second place of occurrence dead bodies of five deceased persons were recovered. 61. The investigating officer had deposed that the first place of occurrence is the house of deceased Ravi Manjhi in Sardar Tola at village Pudisili. To the north of the courtyard, there is two room and in the eastern room the dead bodies of Kalpana Majhian, Jiten Manjhi, Suresh Manjhi and Puresh Manjhi were found. The second place of occurrence is room of Ravi Manjhi (deceased) and he was sleeping in a cot and here dead body of Ravi Manjhi (deceased) was found. For ready reference the aforesaid part of testimony of the investigating officer, is being quoted as under: 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 28 “6.अनुसंधान के Ţम मŐ सभी मृतकों के शव को पोːमाटŊम हेतु सदर अ˙ताल सरायके ला भेजा गया। अनुसंधान के Ţम मŐ घटना˕ल का अवलोकन िकया। इस कांड मŐ पाँच घटना˕ल है। पहला घटना˕ल कपाली, चांिडल थाना से करीब 8 िकमी० पिʮम-दिƗण कोण पर Ťाम पुडीिसली मŐ सरदार टू ला मृतक रिव मांझी का घर İ˕त है। घर के आगे ऑगन के उȅर मŐ दो कमरा है। पिʮम वाले कमरा मŐ पुआल रखा है। पूरब वाले कमरे मŐ मृितका कʙना मझयाइन, िजतेन मांझी, सुरेश मांझी एवं पुरेश मांझी का शव पाया गया। इसी कमरे मŐ Ůाथिमकी अिभयुƅ चुɄ मांझी के Ȫारा उपरोƅ चारों ʩİƅयों को मारकर हȑा करने की बात बतायी गयी है। कमरा मŐ िबछावन लगा Šआ पाया है। िबछावन एवं कमरा मŐ खून लगा Šआ पाया गया है। उȅर वाले दीवार मŐ करीब 3 फीट तक खून का िछǥ् टा और दाग, दिƗण वाले दीवार मŐ करीब 1 फीट तक खून का दाग का िछट्ǥा पाया गया है। कमरे का दरवाजा सटा Šआ पाया गया। Ůाथिमकी अिभयुƅ के Ȫारा दरवाजा खोलकर सोये Šए अव˕ मŐ टांगी (कु ʥाड़ी) से मारकर हȑा करने की बात बतायी जाती है। इस घटना˕ल के पूरव मŐ मृतक रिव मांझी का ही एक कमरा जो एलवेːर से है। घटना˕ल का चौहȞी जो िनɻ Ůकार से है- पूरव मŐ मृतक रिव मांझी का एलबेːर से बना एक कमरा, उसके बाद नीज जमीन, पिʮम मŐ पी०सी०सी० रोड, दिƗण मŐ वादी एवं मृतक का नीज जमीन है। इस कांड का दू सरा घटना˕ल कपाली ओपी से 8 िकमी ० Ťाम पुडीिसली İ˕त मृतक रिव मांझी का कमरा है जो 30/14 फीट का बना है जो एलवेːर से छाया है। इस कमरा मŐ दरवाजा लगा Šआ नही या। कमरा मŐ खॉट िबछा Šआ था। इसी खॉट मŐ मृतक रिव मांझी सोया Šआ था। खॉट पर ही मृतक रिव मांझी का शव पड़ा Šआ पाया गया है। मृतक का िसर उȅर तथा पैर दिƗण िदशा की ओर पाया गया है। मृतक के नाक एवं मुँह से खून िनकला Šआ पाया गया है। खॉट के नीचे भी खून का धɬा पाया गया है। Ůाथिमकी अिभयुƅ चुɄु मांझी के Ȫारा रिवा मांझी को टांगी से काटकर हȑा की बात बताई जाती है।“ 62. Hence, it is the specific testimony of the investigating officer that all the five dead bodies were found in two rooms of the house of Ravi Manjhi(deceased) and investigating officer had also given specific location of the rooms from where dead bodies were found i.e. bodies of Kalpana Majhian, Jiten Manjhi, Suresh Manjhi and Puresh Manjhi were found in the 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 29 eastern room and this room is to the north of the courtyard and the dead body of Ravi Manjhi was found in the another room. 63. But, in the inquest reports of the five deceased persons, the dead bodies were shown to be found in the courtyard and at the door of the house instead of bodies being found in the two rooms of the house of Ravi Manjhi(deceased), situated in the north of the courtyard as stated by the investigating officer (P.W.-8) and also by P.W.-4 (Uttam Singh). 64. On perusal of inquest reports of the deceased persons Kalpana Majhian, Jiten Manjhi, Suresh Manjhi and Puresh Manjhi marked as Ext.- 4/1/PW8, Ext.-4/2/PW8, Ext.-4/3/PW8 and Ext.-4/4/PW8 respectively, this Court finds that in these inquest reports bodies of Kalpana Majhian, Jiten Manjhi, Suresh Manjhi and Puresh Manjhi were mentioned to be found in the courtyard and in the inquest report Ext.-4/PW8 of Ravi Manjhi, body of Ravi Manjhi, was mentioned to be found at his door. 65. Hence, there is material contradiction in the evidence of the investigating officer (P.W.-8) and Uttam Singh (P.W.-4) vis-à-vis inquest reports of the deceased persons, wherein both the investigating officer and Uttam Singh(P.W.-4), in their testimony, had specifically stated that they had witnessed the five dead body in the two rooms of the house of Ravi Manjhi(deceased) ,but, contrary to that in the inquest reports of the five deceased persons, the four bodies i.e bodies of Kalpana Majhian, Jiten Manjhi, Suresh Manjhi and Puresh Manjhi were mentioned to be found in the courtyard and the body of Ravi Manjhi (deceased) is said to be found at the door of his house. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 30 66. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein the settled position of law that not every discrepancy or contradiction matters for assessing the reliability and credibility of a witness, unless the discrepancies and contradictions are so material that it destroys the substratum of the prosecution case. 67. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657, wherein Apex court has dealt material contradiction, which is quoted for ready reference- “30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan1.) 31. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and the other witness also makes material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh2.) 32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.3) 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 31 33. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. (Vide State v. Sait4.) 34. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki5, while dealing with this issue, this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 754, para 8) “8. … In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.” 35. The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. (See Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P.6 and Arumugam v. State7.) 36. In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh8 this Court examined the issue and held: (SCC p. 192, para 9) “9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.” 37. While deciding such a case, the court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.” 68. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 646, wherein, paragraphs- 46, it has been held as under: “46. Then, it was argued that there are certain discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses inasmuch 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 32 as these witnesses have given different timing as to when they had seen the scuffling and strangulation of the deceased by the accused. It is true that there is some variation in the timing given by PW 8, PW 17 and PW 19. Similarly, there is some variation in the statement of PW 7, PW 9 and PW 11. Certain variations are also pointed out in the statements of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 6 as to the motive of the accused for commission of the crime. Undoubtedly, some minor discrepancies or variations are traceable in the statements of these witnesses. But what the Court has to see is whether these variations are material and affect the case of the prosecution substantially. Every variation may not be enough to adversely affect the case of the prosecution. 69. Thus, from the aforesaid proposition of law it is evident that minor discrepancies, embellishments and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitness do not destroy the essential fabric of the prosecution case, the core of which remains unaffected. But at the same time, it is equally settled that the discrepancies which go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses that can be annexed with due importance. 70. Now, reverting back to the fact of the present case, this court finds that vital contradiction has cropped up in the prosecution case as to place recovery of five dead bodies as the investigating officer had specifically stated in his evidence that he found all the five dead bodies in the rooms, situated to the north of the courtyard of the house of Ravi Manjhi(deceased),but, contrary to this in the inquest reports Ext.-4/1/PW8, Ext.-4/2/PW8, Ext.-4/3/PW8 and Ext.-4/4/PW8, of the five deceased persons, bodies were mentioned to be found in the courtyard of the house, which are self-contradictory. 71. Hence, from the forgoing discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that there is vital contradiction in the evidence as to discovery of bodies from the first and second place of occurrence i.e. rooms of the house 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 33 of deceased Ravi Manjhi vis-à-vis inquest reports wherein bodies were shown found in the courtyard of the house. 72. So, this court is of the view that prosecution evidence is self- contradictory as to the place of recovery of the bodies of the deceased persons. 73. Accordingly, issue no.(i) is hereby answered. Re: issue no.(ii) 74. Regarding this issue whether seizure list Ext.P-7/PW8, pertaining to the alleged recovery of three axes and blood stained clothes worn by the accused, said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), was prepared before the information received in the concerned police station? 75. On going through Ext. P-7/PW8, which is the seizure list of alleged recovery of three axes and blood stained clothes worn by the accused, which was said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), this court finds that in this seizure list it is mentioned that seizure list was prepared on 23.02.2019 at 8.00 am in the morning. 76. Informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6) had also specifically stated in his cross-examination that police had arrived at the place of occurrence at 7 am in the morning. Relevant part of the cross-examination of informant Sidhu Soren, is being quoted herein: 12. मœ अपने पड़ोस भोगेन टुडू के घर मŐ िछपा रहा और पुिलस के आने पर वहाँ से िनकाला था। पुिलस लगभग 7 बजे सुबह मŐ आयी थी। तब तक हम वहीं िछपा रहा । 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 34 77. Hence, as per the prosecution case immediately after the murder of five persons, at about 4 am in the morning, police had reached at the place of occurrence and had prepared the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8. 78. Further, in the testimony of the seizure list witnesses Bhagan Tudu(P.W.-9) and Bablu Tudu(P.W.-10), who had stated in their evidence that on 23.02.2019 at 8 am in the morning the police had seized three axes which had wooden handles, blood stained bed of the deceased, blood stained clothes worn by the accused, which were recovered from the house of deceased and seizure list of it was prepared on which they had signed on it. The relevant part of the testimony of seizure list witness Bhagan Tudu(P.W.- 9), is quoted herein below- “1 िदनाक 23/2/2019 को सुबह 8 बजे Ťाम पुडीिसली मृतक के घर से पुिलस Ȫारा तीन टागी, लकड़ी का बेट लगा Šआ एवं मृतक का सोने वाला िबˑर िजसमŐ खून लगा कपड़◌ा तथा अिभयुƅ का पहना Šआ खून लगा कपड़ा, जɑ कर जɑी-सुिच बनाई गई थी िजसपर गवाह के ŝप मŐ मेरा हˑाƗर है पहचाना šँ। जɑी-सुिच पर गवाह का हˑाƗर को ŮदशŊ P-7/1/PW9 अंिकत िकया जाता है।“ 79. Further, the relevant part of the testimony of seizure list witness Bablu Tudu (P.W.-10), is quoted herein below- “1.िदनांक 23/2/2019 को सुबह 8 बजे पुिलस Ȫारा Ťाम पुडीिसली मृȅक के घर से तीन टागी िजसमे लकड़ी को बेट लगा लगा Šआ, मृतक का सोने वाला िबˑर िजसमे खून लगा कपड़ा तथा अिभयुƅ का पहना Šआ कपड़ा िजसमे खून लगा Šआ जɑ कर जɑी-सूिच बनाई गई थी िजसपर गवाह के ŝप मŐ मेरा हˑाƗर है पहचानता šं िजसे ŮदशŊ P- 7/2/PW10 अंिकत िकया जाता है।” 80. Hence, from the testimony of both the seizure list witnesses, it is obvious that on 23.02.2019 at 8 am in the morning the police had seized the alleged three axes and blood stained clothes worn by the accused, which 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 35 were recovered from the house of deceased Ravi Manjhi and police had prepared the seizure list on which both the seizure list witnesses had signed on the seizure list at 8 am itself. 81. But, later on, in their testimony, both these seizure list witnesses had resiled from their earlier statement that they had signed on the seizure list at the place of occurrence itself on 23.02.2019 at 8 am and contrary to that stated that they had signed on the seizure list at the police station. The relevant part of the cross-examination of seizure list witness Bablu Tudu (P.W.-10), is quoted herein below- “4. मœने दोनों हˑाƗर थाना मŐ िकया था।“ 82. Hence, to test the veracity of the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8 vis-à-vis contradictory statement of both the seizure list witnesses, this Court has gone through the FIR. 83. But, surprisingly, in the FIR, time of receiving information at the police station is entered as 17.30 hours i.e. 5.30 pm in the evening on 23.02.2019 and station diary entry time is also shown as 17.30 hours and the column of station diary entry is left blank. 84. Hence, this leads to the conclusion that prosecution had supressed and withheld the document containing the information regarding murder of five deceased persons because on the one hand in the seizure list Ext.P- 7/PW8, date and time of preparation of seizure list is shown as 23.02.2019 at 8.00 am in the morning, but, on the other hand in the FIR, time of receiving information at the police station is entered as 17.30 hours i.e. 5.30 pm in the evening on 23.02.2019. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 36 85. This Court is of the considered view that the seizure list, Ext. P-7/PW-8, relating to the alleged recovery of three axes and blood-stained clothes said to have been worn by the accused and recovered from the house of the deceased Ravi Manjhi, was prepared even prior to the receipt of information at the concerned police station. Accordingly, the said seizure list cannot be regarded as reliable, as it has not been prepared in a proper or lawful manner. 86. Accordingly, issue no. (ii), is hereby answered. Re: issue no.(iii) 87. Regarding this issue i.e. whether the alleged recovery of three axes vide seizure list Ext.P-7/PW8, said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), can be treated as cogent evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant in the alleged commission of crime. 88. In this regard ongoing through Ext. P-7/PW8, which is inter alia the seizure list of alleged recovery of three axes, this court finds that in this seizure list it is mentioned about the seizure of ‘three axes fitted with wooden stick’ recovered from the house of deceased Ravi Manjhi. 89. In his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer had stated that accused had tangi(axe) in his hand which was soaked in blood. Relevant para of the cross-examination of the Investigating Offer is quoted for ready reference- “21. घटना के बाद अिभयुƅ चुɄु मांझी ने ˢयं अपने घर पर आग लगाकर बगल मŐ पड़ोसी भगान टुडू के घर मŐ छु प गया था। अिभयुƅ के हाथ मŐ टांगी था जो खून से लथपथ था।“ 90. But, surprisingly in the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8 pertaining inter alia to the recovery of ‘three axes fitted with wooden stick’, nothing is 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 37 mentioned that any of these axes were blood stained, though, the Investigating Officer had stated in his cross-examination that accused had tangi(axe) in his hand which was soaked with blood. 91. Hence, there is vital contradiction in the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8, pertaining to the seizure of the three axes wherein only recovery of three axes are shown and it was not mentioned in the seizure list that any of the axes had blood stain though Investigating Officer had stated in his cross- examination that accused had tangi(axe) in his hand which was soaked with blood. 92. Now this court is proceeding to examine the SFL Report Ext.-12. Here, it is pertinent note that in the SFL Report Ext.-12 under the caption titled ‘Description of Article(s) contained in the Parcel(s)’, it mentioned at serial no. 10 that iron rusted tangi(axe) marked as Ext.-7a, bore reddish brown stains at places and at serial no. 11 and 12 it is mentioned that iron rusted tangi(axe) bearing Ext.-7b and Ext.-7c respectively bore no any distinct stains. 93. Hence, facts remain that in the FSL report it is specifically noted that one of the axe (tangi) i.e. Ext.-7a, which was sent to the FSL vide letter no. 127/2019 dated 28.02.2019 (Ext.P-11/PW8), bore blood stain. 94. Then, question arises, why in the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8, which is inter alia the seizure list of alleged recovery of three axe said to be recovered from the house of deceased Ravi Manjhi, in any of the axe, no recovery of any blood stain axe was shown in the seizure list and it raises doubt in the prosecution case. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 38 95. Hence, this Court is of view that in the present case there was manipulation, in the preparation of seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8, which is also evident from the fact that when the three seized axes were sent to the FSL vide Ext.-7 under letter no. 127/2019 dated 28.02.2019 (Ext.P-11/PW8), FSL had noted that in one of the iron rusted tangi(axe) marked as Ext.-7a, it bore reddish brown stains at places though in the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8 no any recovery of blood stain axe was shown. 96. Now this court is proceeding to examine the DNA report. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to see the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of reliability of DNA evidence in criminal trial. Hon’ble Apex court in case of Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 5 SCC 509 had laid down that question as to whether DNA tests are virtually infallible may be a moot question, but the fact remains that such test has come to stay and is being used extensively in the investigation of crimes and the court often accepts the views of the experts, especially when cases rest on circumstantial evidence. Paragraph-36 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “36. The DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the biological blueprint of every life. DNA is made up of a double stranded structure consisting of a deoxyribose sugar and phosphate backbone, cross-linked with two types of nucleic acids referred to as adenine and guanine, purines and thymine and cytosine pyrimidines. The most important role of DNA profile is in the identification, such as an individual and his blood relations such as mother, father, brother, and so on. Successful identification of skeleton remains can also be performed by DNA profiling. DNA usually can be obtained from any biological material such as blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, bones, etc. The question as to whether DNA tests are virtually infallible may be a moot question, but the fact remains that such test 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 39 has come to stay and is being used extensively in the investigation of crimes and the court often accepts the views of the experts, especially when cases rest on circumstantial evidence. More than half a century, samples of human DNA began to be used in the criminal justice system. Of course, debate lingers over the safeguards that should be required in testing samples and in presenting the evidence in court. DNA profile, however, is consistently held to be valid and reliable, but of course, it depends on the quality control and quality assurance procedures in the laboratory…” 97. Further, in case of Anil v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69, Apex court has laid down that DNA genotype can be obtained from any biological material such as bone, blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, etc. Now, for several years, DNA profile has also shown a tremendous impact on forensic investigation. Generally, when DNA profile of a sample found at the scene of crime matches with the DNA profile of the suspect, it can generally be concluded that both the samples have the same biological origin. Paragraph-18 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “18. Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. DNA genotype can be obtained from any biological material such as bone, blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, etc. Now, for several years, DNA profile has also shown a tremendous impact on forensic investigation. Generally, when DNA profile of a sample found at the scene of crime matches with the DNA profile of the suspect, it can generally be concluded that both the samples have the same biological origin. DNA profile is valid and reliable, but variance in a particular result depends on the quality control and quality procedure in the laboratory.” 98. Again, in case of Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 771, Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down that like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on the facts and circumstances and the weight accorded to other 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 40 evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative. Relevant paragraph of this Judgment is quoted herein below- “49. One cannot lose sight of the fact that DNA evidence is also in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged in Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Undoubtedly, an expert giving evidence before the court plays a crucial role, especially since the entire purpose and object of opinion evidence is to aid the court in forming its opinion on questions concerning foreign law, science, art, etc., on which the court might not have the technical expertise to form an opinion on its own. In criminal cases, such questions may pertain to aspects such as ballistics, fingerprint matching, handwriting comparison, and even DNA testing or superimposition techniques, as seen in the instant case. 50. The role of an expert witness rendering opinion evidence before the Court may be explained by referring to the following observations of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. [Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 840] : (SCC p. 714, para 16) “16. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the lay person. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved is highly specialised and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed.” (emphasis supplied) 51. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of an expert witness to assist the Court effectively by furnishing it with the relevant report based on his expertise along with his reasons, so that the Court may form its independent judgment by assessing such materials and reasons furnished by the expert for coming to an appropriate conclusion. Be that as it may, it cannot be forgotten that opinion evidence is advisory in nature, and the Court is not bound by the evidence of the experts. [See State (UT of Delhi) v. Pali Ram [State (UT of Delhi) v. Pali Ram, (1979) 2 SCC 158 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 389] ; State of H.P. v. Jai Lal [State of H.P. v. Jai Lal, (1999) 7 SCC 280 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1184] ; Baso Prasad v. State of 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 41 Bihar [Baso Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2006) 13 SCC 65 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 567] ; Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. [Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 840] and Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee [Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 663 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 299] .] 52. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on the facts and circumstances and the weight accorded to other evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative. This is all the more important to remember, given that even though the accuracy of DNA evidence may be increasing with the advancement of science and technology with every passing day, thereby making it more and more reliable, we have not yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be infallible. Thus, it cannot be said that the absence of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a party, especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such party.” 99. Further, in case of Manoj v. State of M.P., (2023) 2 SCC 353, Hon’ble Apex Court had held that reliance, on the DNA report is corroborate and being an opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case. Paragraph-158 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “158. This Court, therefore, has relied on DNA reports, in the past, where the guilt of an accused was sought to be established. Notably, the reliance, was to corroborate. This Court highlighted the need to ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence; it also held that being an opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case.” 100. Hence, DNA evidence is also in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged in Section 45 of the Evidence Act and like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on the facts and circumstances. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 42 101. Now, before proceeding further it would be pertinent to narrate certain facts related to FSL Report. 102. On perusal of record, this Court finds that apart from other articles recovered, the three alleged recovered axes were marked as Ext.-7 and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter no. 127/2019 dated 28.02.2019 vide Ext.P-11/PW.8 for examination. 103. The Conclusion of SFL Report is DFSL Report No: 444/2019 Ranchi dated 23.04.2025, which was marked as Ext.-12. 104. From the SFL Report Ext.-12, it appears that the aforesaid three recovered axes which were sent to the SFL vide Ext.-7, were further marked as Ext.-7a, Ext.-7b and Ext.-7c in the laboratory, which is mentioned under the caption ‘Description of Article(s)contained in the Parcel(s)’ Here, it is also mentioned that iron rusted tangi(axe) marked as Ext.-7a, bore reddish brown stains at places and rusted tangi(axe) bearing Ext.-7b and Ext.-7c bore no any distinct stains. 105. Further, under the caption ‘Result of examination(s)’ it is mentioned that as a result of chemical test, blood was detected in Exhibits marked-7a at places. It was also mentioned that as a result of chemical test blood could not be detected in the exhibit marked 7b and 7c. 106. Thereafter, under the caption ‘Description of source of exhibits for DNA Profiling’, at Serial no. 10 it is mentioned blood positive Swab from iron rusted tangi on gauze piece cuttings marked-7a and at the Serial no. 11 and 12, there is mention of blood negative Swab from iron rusted tangi on gauze piece cuttings marked-7b and 7c. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 43 107. The Conclusion of the DNA report is quoted herein below for the ready reference- “Conclusions 1. The DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-1a (Source: Blood positive T-Shirt piece cuttings said to be ganji of deceased Ravi Manjhi), Exhibit marked-10 (Source: Blood positive cotton piece cuttings), Exhibit marked-3 (Source: Blood positive T- Shirt piece cuttings said to be deceased Jiten Manjhi), Exhibit marked-8g (Source: Blood positive cloth piece cuttings), Exhibit marked-6a (Source: Blood positive track pant piece cuttings said to be of accused Chunun Manjhi), Exhibit marked-8a (Source: Blood positive cloth piece cuttings), Exhibit marked-8d (Source: Blood positive cloth piece cuttings), Exhibit marked-11h (Source: Blood positive cotton piece cuttings), Exhibit marked-4 (Source: Blood positive half Shirt piece cuttings said to be of deceased Suresh Manjhi), Exhibit marked-8b (Source: Blood positive cloth piece cuttings), Exhibit marked-81 (Source: Blood positive cloth piece cuttings), Exhibit marked-1b (Source: Blood positive half pant piece cuttings said to be deceased Ravi Manjhi), Exhibit marked-65 (Source: Blood positive half sleeve T-Shirt piece cuttings said to be of Accused Chunnu Manjhi) and Elhibit marked-9b (Source: Blood positive gauze piece cuttings said to be of accused Chunnu Manjhi) is from six different human male source of origin. 2. The DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-2a (Source: Blood positive sari piece cuttings said to be deceased Kalpna Manjhiyain), Exhibit marked-2b (Source: Blood positive blouse piece cuttings said to be deceased Kalpna Manjhiyain), Exhibit marked-8c (Source: Blood positive cloth piece cuttings), and Exhibit marked-8h (Source: Blood positive cloth piece cuttings) is from one and the same human female source of origin. 3. The DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-9a (Source: Blood positive swab from plastic dibba on gauze piece cuttings said to be of accused Chunnu Manjhi) and Exhibit marked-7h (Source: Blood negative swab from iron rusted tangi on gauze piece cuttings) is mixed and partial DNA profile from more than one human source of origin. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 44 4. The DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-8c (Source: Blood positive cloth piece cuttings) is partial DNA profile are from one and the same human source of origin. 5. The DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-7a (Source: Blood positive swab from iron rusted tangi on gauze piece cuttings) and Exhibit marked-11a (Source: Blood positive cotton piece cuttings) is mixed DNA profile from more than one human source of origin. 6. The DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-7a (Source: Blood positive swab from iron rusted tangi on gauze piece cuttings) is mixed DNA profile from more than one human source of origin which is found to be present/The DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-la (Source: Blood positive T-Shirt piece cuttings suid to be ganji of deceased Ravi Manjhi), Exhibit marked-3 (Source: Blood positive T-Shirt piece cuttings said to be deceased Jiten Manjhi) except three allele and Exhibit marked-6a (Source: Blood positive track pant piece cuttings said to be of Accused Chunnu Manjhi). 7. The DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-11a (Source: Blood positive cotton piece cuttings) is mixed DNA profile from more than one human source of origin which is found to be present in the DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-la (Source: Blood positive T-Shirt piece cuttings said to be ganji of deceased Ravi Manjhi) and Exhibit marked-4 (Source: Blood positive half Shirt piece cuttings said to be of deceased Suresh Manjhi). 8. The DNA profile could not be generated from the source of exhibit marked 7c (Source: Blood negative swab from iron rusted tangi on gauze piece cuttings amplifiable DNA could not be extracted. Therefore, no further opinion could be furnished.” 108. Now, out of the three alleged tangi(axe) seized, in the FSL Report under the caption ‘Result of examination(s)’ it is mentioned that as a result of chemical test, blood could not be detected in the exhibit marked 7b and 7c. Accordingly, regarding axe marked exhibit 7c, in the conclusion report of DNA, it is rightly mentioned that DNA Profile could not be generated from the source exhibit marked 7c. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 45 109. Again, regarding the axe marked exhibits marked-7b, under the caption ‘Description of source of exhibits for DNA Profiling’, at Serial no. 11, it is noted that blood negative Swab from iron rusted tangi on gauze piece cuttings marked-7b. 110. But, in the conclusion of the DNA Report, at serial no. 3, regarding the axe marked exhibits marked-7b, it is noted that the DNA profile was generated from exhibits marked-7b and its source is shown blood negative swab from iron rusted tangi on gauge piece cutting. 111. Hence, this Court is of view that it will not be safe to place reliance on DNA profile generated from axe exhibits marked-7b, for two reasons - firstly that no blood stain axe was seized as it is evident from the seizure list of Ext. P-7/PW8 of the seizure of axe and also for the reason that under ‘Description of source of exhibits for DNA Profiling’ regarding axe marked Exibit-7b, in its source it is noted blood negative Swab from iron rusted tangi on gauze piece cuttings. 112. Hence, now only one axe marked exhibits marked-7a remains and DNA profile generated from axe marked exhibits marked-7a cannot be accepted because in the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8 pertaining to the three axes, no blood stain on any of these three axes were shown in the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8, but, when, the three axes were sent to FSL for examination, FSL had noted under the caption ‘Description of Article(s)contained in the Parcel(s)’ that iron rusted tangi(axe) marked as Ext.-7a, bore reddish brown stains at places. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 46 113. This Court has already come to the conclusion while dealing issue no.(ii) that seizure list Ext.P-7/PW8, inter-alia pertaining to alleged recovery of three axes, was not reliable. 114. Hence, from the forgoing discussion this Court is of view that alleged recovery of three axes vide seizure list Ext.P-7/PW8, said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), cannot be treated as cogent evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant in the alleged commission of crime and that too in present case where the prosecution case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. 115. Accordingly, issue no (iii) has been answered. Re: issue no. (iv) 116. Regarding this issue i.e. whether the alleged recovery of the blood stain clothes vide Ext.P-7/PW8, wore by the accused, said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), can be treated as cogent evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant in the alleged commission of crime. 117. In this regard ongoing through the Ext. P-7/PW8, this court finds that in this seizure list it is mentioned about the seizure of ‘blood stain clothes wore by the accused’ from the house of deceased Ravi Manjhi. 118. Hence, in the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8, no specific description of clothes wore by the accused/appellant is mentioned. 119. But, when blood stain clothes were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter no. 127/2019 dated 28.02.2019 vide Ext.P-11/PW8 for examination, surprisingly at Serial No.6, specific description of dress 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 47 recovered by the Investigating Officer was shown as ‘black colour track suit’ and ‘brown vest’, stained with blood, marked as Ext.-6. 120. Hence, question arises why the investigating officer in the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8, did not specifically mentioned that accused was wearing ‘black colour track suit’ and ‘brown vest’ instead investigating officer had only ambiguously mentioned recovery of ‘blood stain clothes wore by the accused’. 121. Hence, this omission by the investigating officer in preparing the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8 to the recovery of ‘blood stain clothes wore by the accused’ was not normal omission, but it was manipulated to suit the prosecution case. 122. Now, coming to the FSL Report. On perusal of record, this Court finds that blood stain clothes wore by the accused was marked as Ext.-6 and was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter no. 127/2019 dated 28.02.2019 vide Ext.P-11/PW8 for examination. 123. The Conclusion of SFL Report is DFSL Report No: 444/2019 Ranchi dated 23.04.2025, which is Ext.-12. 124. From the SFL Report Ext.-12, it appears that track suit and vest which was sent to the SFL vide Ext.-6, was further marked as 6a and 6b respectively in the SFL. It was also mentioned that black colour track suit pant marked as 6a, bore reddish brown stains over small area and the brown colour, half sleeve t-shirt marked-6b, bore no stains. 125. In the result of examination, blood was detected in Exhibit marked- 6a over small area. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 48 126. In the SFL Report Ext.-12, it was also mentioned that as a result of chemical test blood could not be detected in the exhibit marked -6b. 127. In its observation at Serial No.1, it is mentioned that DNA profile generated from Exhibit marked-6a (Source: Blood positive track pant piece cuttings said to be of accused Chunnu Manjhi) is from six different human male source of origin. 128. Further, in its conclusion at Serial No.1, it is mentioned that DNA profile generated from source Exhibit marked-6a (Source: Blood positive track pant piece cuttings said to be of accused Chunnu Manjhi) and Exhibit marked-6b (Source: Blood positive half sleeve T-Shirt cuttings said to be of accused Chunnu Manjhi) is from six different human male source of origin. 129. But, the SFL Report Ext.-12, pertaining to DNA profile generated from Exhibit marked-6a (Source: Blood positive track pant piece cuttings said to be of accused Chunnu Manjhi) and Exhibit marked-6b (Source: Blood positive half sleeve T-Shirt cuttings said to be of accused Chunnu Manjhi), cannot be relied upon, as in the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8 pertaining to the recovery of ‘blood stain clothes wore by the accused’, it was not mentioned that cloth which accused/ appellant was wearing during the time of murder of the deceased persons was ‘track pant’ and ‘half sleeve T-Shirt’. Hence, subsequently DNA profile generated from Exhibit marked- 6a (Source: Blood positive track pant piece cuttings said to be of accused Chunnu Manjhi) and Exhibit marked-6b (Source: Blood positive half sleeve T-Shirt cuttings said to be of accused Chunnu Manjhi), cannot be relied. 130. Accordingly, on the basis of forgoing discussion, this court is of view that alleged recovery of the blood stain clothes (Ext.P-7/PW8) wore by 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 49 the accused, said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), cannot be treated as cogent evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant in the alleged commission of crime. 131. Accordingly, issue no. (iv) has been herby answered. Re: issue no.(v) 132. Regarding this issue i.e. whether acquittal of the appellant for the charges under section 307 and section 326 of IPC for giving axe blow and causing grievous hurt to Guruwari Majhiyan (informant’s mother), has adversely affected the prosecution case? 133. This court finds that charges were framed against the appellant under sections 307 and 326 of IPC for giving axe blow and causing grievous hurt respectively to Guruwari Majhiyan (informant’s mother). 134. But the learned trial court had acquitted the appellant for the charges under sections 307 and 326 of IPC. 135. At this juncture, this court think it apposite to refer to certain authorities pertaining to evidentiary value of the injured eye witness. 136. The law is well settled that the judgment of conviction can be passed on the basis of the evidence of injured witnesses which has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly, as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred hereunder as :- . “The evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Merely because there was no mention of a knife in the first information report, that does not wash away the effect of the evidence tendered by the injured witnesses PWs 4 and 7. Minor 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 50 discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court to attach vulnerability to the evidence of the injured witnesses are clearly inconsequential. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the accused that though mere non-mention of the assailants’ names in the requisition memo of injury is not sufficient to discard the prosecution version in entirety, according to him it is a doubtful circumstance and forms a vital link to determine whether the prosecution version is credible. It is a settled position in law that omission to mention the name of the assailants in the requisition memo perforce does not render the prosecution version brittle.” 137. Likewise, in case of Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 125, at paragraph-22 of the judgment Hon’ble Apex Court held as follow- “22.The importance of injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be overstated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial.” 138. Further, in case of Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 15 SCC 190, Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the statement of an injured eyewitness is an important piece of evidence which cannot be easily discarded by a court. Minor discrepancies do not matter. Paragraph-31 of the said judgment is quoted herein below- “31. The High Court has gone wrong in its appreciation of the case, both on facts as well as on law. The statement of an injured eyewitness is an important piece of evidence which cannot be easily discarded by a court. Minor discrepancies do not matter. In State of M.P. v. Mansingh5 where conviction of the accused by the trial court, inter alia, under Section 302, was set aside by the High Court on the so- called discrepancies of an injured witness this Court while allowing the State’s appeal against the acquittal said this: (SCC p. 419, para 9) “9. The evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Merely because there was no mention of a knife in 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 51 the first information report, that does not wash away the effect of the evidence tendered by the injured witnesses, PWs 4 and 7. Minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court to attach vulnerability to the evidence of the injured witnesses are clearly inconsequential.” 139. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, has laid down certain legal principles, which the Courts are required to keep in mind while appreciating the evidence of an injured eyewitness. Paragraphs 26 to 27 of the said judgment are being referred hereunder as- “26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind: 26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. 26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. 26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. 26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. 26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. 26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 52 27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.” 140. Thus, from the aforesaid mentioned judgments, it is evident that the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and has to be accepted as extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. 141. In the present case, informant in his fardbeyan had stated that appellant had assaulted his mother Guruwari Majhian. 142. Further in his examination-in-chief also informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6) had deposed that appellant had assaulted his mother Guruwari Majhian, and broke her waist and legs and his mother was treated in M.G.M., Hospital. Relevant part of testimony of informant the is quoted herein below for ready reference- “3. मेरे घर पर मेरी माँ गुŝवारी मंिझयाईन को अके ली पाकर छे ककर रखा और बाद मŐ उसके साथ भी मार-पीट िकया। मेरी माँ को उसने मारकर कमर 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 53 तथा पैर तोड़ िदया मेरी माँ का ईलाज भी एम० जी० एम० अ˙ताल मŐ Šआ था।“ 143. But, surprisingly alleged injured Guruwari Majhian (informant’s mother), whose name also finds place in the charge sheet under the column ‘witnesses to be examined’, was neither examined by the prosecution nor her injury requisition and injury report, is on record. 144. Hence, the informant’s testimony that after the murder of Ravi Manjhi and members of Ravi’s family, appellant had come to his house and assaulted his mother with tangi, has no leg to stand. 145. Hon’ble Apex Court in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra(supra), had laid down the legal principles, which the courts are required to keep in mind while appreciating the evidence of an injured eyewitness and at paragraph-26.2 had laid down that it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. 146. Prosecution, ought to have examined the alleged injured Guruwari Majhian (informant’s mother) and that too in a case which rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. But, in present case prosecution did not examine the alleged injured Guruwari Majhian (informant’s mother) and hence, prosecution case becomes doubtful. 147. Therefore, this court is of view that acquittal of the appellant for the charges under section 307 and section 326 of IPC for giving axe blow and causing grievous hurt to Guruwari Majhiyan (informant’s mother), has adversely affected the prosecution case. 148. Accordingly, issue no.(v) is hereby answered. Issue no.(vi) 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 54 149. Regarding the issue i.e. whether the material as has come in course of trial is sufficient to prove the charge under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code? 150. This Court finds that charge under Section 427 of IPC was framed by the learned trial court against the appellant for committing mischief by causing lose to the motorcycle, cycle and other goods of the house of the informant Shidhu Soren (P.W.-6). 151. The learned trial court had convicted the appellant for charge under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code relying on the oral testimony of P.W.- 1, P.W.-2 P.W.-3, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, holding that appellant had burnt the motorcycle of the informant. 152. On going through the evidence of Investigating Officer(P.W-8), this Court finds that Investigating Officer had stated that out of the five place of occurrence, the fifth places of occurrence, is the house of the informant Shidhu Soren (P.W.-6), which is made of mud and straw and here motor- cycle, important document and house hold articles were said to be destroyed due to burning. Relevant portion of testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W-8), is quoted below for ready reference- “10. इस कांड का पाँचवा घटना˕ल पुडीिसली İ˕त वादी िसȠ सोरेन का लकड़ी एवं फू स से बना िमǥी का मकान है जो 15/10 फीट का है जहाँ पर वादी का मोटर साईिकल एवं अɊ महȕपूणŊ कागजात तया घरेलू सामान जलकर नʼ होने की बात बताई जाती है। इसकी चौह Ȟी िनɻ Ůकार है- पूरब मŐ कटहल का पेड़, उसके बाद रिवȾ Ůमािणक का िमǥी का मकान, पिʮम मŐ वादी का नीज जमीन, उȅर मŐ पी०सी०सी० रोड तथा दिƗण मŐ जामुन का पेड़ और खाली मैदान İ˕त है। मेरे Ȫारा सभी घटना˕ल का मानिचũ भी बनाया गया है।“ 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 55 153. But, ongoing through the testimony of informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.- 6), surprisingly informant had nowhere in his testimony had stated that due to fire his motorcycle and other house hold articles were burnt though specific charge was framed against the appellant that appellant had committed mischief by causing lose to the motorcycle, cycle and other goods of the house of the informant Shidhu Soren. 154. Further, this court finds that no seizure list of remains of burnt motorcycle, cycle and other house hold articles, are on record, which could have conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant for burning the motorcycle, cycle and house hold articles of the informant Shidhu Soren (P.W.-6). 155. Hence, when informant Shidhu Soren (P.W.-6) had himself not supported the prosecution case of burning his motorcycle, cycle and other house hold articles, by the appellant, then prosecution case becomes doubtful for the charge under section 427 of IPC against the appellant. 156. Hence, this Court is of the view that no material as has come in course of trial, which is sufficient to prove the charge under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 157. Accordingly, issue no.(vi) has been herby answered. Issue no.(vii) 158. This issue is whether the testimony of P.W.-6 (informant) and P.W.- 2 Chaita Soren, is cogent, reliable and trustworthy to convict the appellant? 159. To test the reliability and trustworthiness of the informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6), this Court finds that informant in his examination-in-chief had stated that when he opened the door, then, accused/appellant gave the 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 56 blow of axe on him, but he caught the hand of the accused/appellant. He received the injury on his head for which he was treated in M.G.M. Hospital. Paragraph-2 of the examination-in-chief of the informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6), is quoted for ready reference- “2. जब मœ दरवाजा खोला तो मुझ पर भी हमला िकया और मेरे उपर भी कु ʥाड़ी चलाया मœ बचते Šए उसके हाथ को पकड़ िलया। मुझे सर पर चोट लगी थी िजसका मœने ईलाज एम० जी० एम० अ˙ताल मŐ Šआ था। उसके बाद वह दाउली लेकर आया तब तक मœ वहाँ से भागर अपने पड़ोसी भेगेन टुडू के घर घुसा और दरवाजा बंद कर िलया ।“ 160. Hence, as per the testimony of the informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6), informant was injured by the accused/appellant for which he was treated in M.G.M. Hospital. But, ongoing through the record, this Court finds that neither the injury requisition nor injury report of the doctor is on record to prove that informant was injured by the accused/appellant and hence, raises doubt in the reliability and trustworthiness in the evidence of the informant. 161. Again, informant in paragrap-2 of his examination-in-chief, had deposed that when, accused/appellant came with dawli, then he ran away and entered in the house of his neighbor Bhagan Tudu (P.W.-9) and locked the door. Paragraph-2 of the examination-in-chief of the informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6), has already been quoted above. 162. But, ongoing to the evidence of Bhagan Tudu (P.W.-9), this Court finds that Bhagan Tudu had nowhere in his evidence had stated that informant Shidhu Soren (P.W.-6), had entered into his house and had locked the door. 163. Further, informant in his fardbeyan had specifically stated that his motorcycle, cycle and other articles were burnt due to setting of his house on 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 57 fire. But, in his evidence informant Shidhu Soren (P.W.-6), had not stated that his motorcycle, cycle and house hold articles were burnt in fire. 164. Hence, informant has failed to support the prosecution case on vital fact of burning his motorcycle, cycle and house hold articles and the oral evidence of the informant that he was assaulted by the appellant with an axe has also not been proved by the injury requisition and injury report. 165. Therefore, the summary of the foregoing discussion is that allegation of the informant in his oral evidence that he was assaulted by an axe by the accused/appellant, as a result he was injured, which is not supported by any injury report, renders informant’s evidence unreliable and doubtful. 166. Further, the informant had remained silent in his examination-in- chief on the fact of burning his motorcycle, cycle and house hold articles, though specific charge was framed in this regard against the appellant. Further, finding no support from Bhagan Tudu (P.W.-9), about the fact that when accused/appellant came with dawli, then he ran away and entered in the house of his neighbor Bhagan Tudu (P.W.-9), puts the informant in class of unreliable and untrustworthy witness. 167. Now, coming to the testimony of P.W.-2 Chaita Soren. P.W.-2 Chaita Soren, is the nephew of the deceased Ravi Manjhi and accused/appellant Chunnu Manjhi. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.-2 had stated that when he woke up at 4:00 a.m., then, he entered the room where Chunnu Manjhi had committed murder and there, he saw axe in the hand of accused Chunnu Manjhi and Chunnu Manjhi had also chased him. Relevant part of the deposition of P.W.-2 Chaita Soren, is quoted for ready reference- “ 2. जब मœ 4.00 बजे उठा तो जहाँ चुɄु माझी मडŊर िकया था उस कमरा मŐ घुस गया तो देखा िक चुɄु माझी के हाथ मŐ कु ʥाडी था। चुɄु माझी मुझे भी 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 58 दौडाया था लेिकन मœ भाग गया। चुɄु माझी बोल रहा था िक जब हम वापस आयेगे तो सब को मार दŐगे।“ 168. But, ongoing through paragraph-7 of his cross-examination, this court finds that evidence of P.W.-2 Chaita Soren, is self-contradictory as in paragraph-7 P.W.-2 had stated that when he woke up on halla of fire, he found the house of Ravi Uncle(deceased) burning and smoke was coming out. Hence, question arises when as per the testimony of P.W.-2, the house of Ravi Manjhi (deceased) was burning, then, why the accused/appellant will allow himself to remain present in the burning house of the Ravi Manjhi (deceased) and will allow to ablaze himself in fire, more so when accused/ appellant was free to move and also that why P.W.-2 Chaita Soren will enter in the burning house. Relevant part of the cross-examination, of P.W.-2 Chaita Soren, is quoted for ready reference- “7 घटना के समय मŐ सोया Šआ था इसिलए मœ नहीं देखा घटना कौन िकया है। मœ आग लगा का हʟा सुना तो उठा था तो देखा िक रिब चाचा के घर मŐ अंदर आग लगा था और धुंआ उठ रहा था।“ 169. Here, it is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer Ropna Ram Kanshi (P.W-8) had not stated in his evidence that there was fire in the house Ravi Manji(deceased). 170. Hence, the statement of P.W.-2 Chaita Soren, that when he entered the room where Chunnu Manjhi had committed murder i.e room of Ravi Manjhi (deceased) and there, he saw axe in the hand of Chunnu Manjhi and that Chunnu Manjhi had also chased him, is self-contradictory and cannot be accepted and hence, raises doubt in the credibility and trustworthiness of P.W.-2. 171. Accordingly issue no. (vii) has been hereby answered. Re: Issue no. (viii) 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 59 172. The issue is whether the trial Court, while convicting the appellant, has committed any illegality or not? 173. From the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court had noted that this case was based on circumstantial evidence and motive behind the murder was land dispute. The learned Trial Court had also noted that the appellant was found at the place of occurrence with the murder weapon and had chased a witness in order to kill him. The learned Trial Court had also noted that DNA profile generated from the seized articles which was sent to SFSL is mixed and partial DNA profile from more than one human source of origin reveals that it was used in the commission of offence as there were five deceased persons. 174. Regarding motive of the present case, this Court finds that Shambhu Soren (P.W.-1), who is the brother of the deceased Ravi Manjhi and accused/ appellant Chunnu Manjhi, had stated in his cross-examination that Ravi Soren (deceased), had sold one katha of land for one lakh rupees and money was distributed among the five brothers amounting to Rs.20,000/- each. Further, P.W.-2 Chaita Soren, who is the nephew of the deceased, had also stated in his cross-examination that two weeks before the incident, his all uncle had sold a land to someone for way, and all had received their share of money. Informant Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6), had also denied the suggestion that there was land dispute between him and the accused/appellant. 175. Hence, in their evidence Shambhu Soren (P.W.-1) and Sidhu Soren (P.W.-6), who are the brothers of the accused/appellant Chunnu Manjhi and Chaita Soren (P.W.-2), who is the nephew of accused/appellant Chunnu 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 60 Manjhi, they have not deposed that there was land dispute between the brothers or with accused/appellant Chunnu Manjhi and the deceased Ravi Manjhi. 176. Moreover, Ravi Manjhi(deceased), his wife Parvati Majhian and all the three sons of Ravi Manjhi(deceased) namely Suresh Manjhi, Paresh Manjhi and Jiten Manjhi, were killed. Hence, not a single member in the family of Ravi Manjhi(deceased), is left to state about the enmity for which Ravi Manjhi(deceased) and Ravi Manjhi’s entire family members were killed. 177. Hence, motive behind the murder of Ravi Majhi, Parvati Majhian, Suresh Manjhi, Paresh Manjhi and Jiten Manjhi, is uncertain. 178. The learned Trial Court had also noted that the appellant was found at the place of occurrence with the murder weapon. 179. But this Court while dealing the issue no.(iii) had answered that alleged recovery of three axes vide seizure list Ext.P-7/PW8, said to be recovered from the house of the deceased (Ravi Manjhi), cannot be treated as cogent evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant in the alleged commission of crime. 180. The learned Trial Court had also noted that the appellant had chased a witness in order to kill him. Though, learned Trial Court had not specifically named the witness who was chased by the accused/appellant. But, Chaita Soren (P.W.-2), in his evidence had stated that accused/appellant had chased him. 181. But, while dealing issue no. (vii), this Court had already noted that evidence of Chaita Soren (P.W.-2), was self-contradictory and cannot be 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 61 accepted and hence, this Court has raised doubt in the credibility and trustworthiness in the evidence of Chaita Soren (P.W.-2). 182. The learned Trial Court had relied on the DNA profile generated from the seized articles which was sent to SFSL, is mixed and partial DNA profile from more than one human source of origin reveals that it was used in the commission of offence as there were five deceased persons. 183. In this regard, this Court is of the view that learned Trial Court failed to observe that in the present case seizure list Ext. P-7/PW.8 which pertains to the alleged recovery of three axes and blood stain clothes worn by the accused, which was said to be recovered from the house of the deceased Ravi Manjhi, was prepared on 23.02.2019 at 8.00 am in the morning whereas in the FIR it is mentioned that information was received in the police station at 5.30 pm on 23.02.2019. 184. Hence, while dealing the issue no.(ii), this Court had come to the conclusion that prosecution had supressed and withheld the document containing the first information regarding murder of five deceased persons and hence, Seizure list Ext.P-7/PW8 is not reliable, but the leaned Trial Court had overlooked such vital issue. 185. So, the learned Trial Court erred in relying on the DNA profile generated from the seized articles vide seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8. 186. Further, the learned trial court had convicted the appellant for the charge under section 427 of IPC for committing mischief by causing loss to the motorcycle, cycle and other goods of the house of the informant Shidhu Soren (P.W.-6). But, while dealing issue no.(vi), this court has come to the 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 62 conclusion that there was no material before the trial court to prove the charge under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 187. Accordingly issue no. (viii) has been hereby answered. Re: Issue No. (ix) 188. This issue is whether on the basis of the testimony of oral as well as documentary evidence, can it be said to be a case based on circumstantial evidence or if it based upon the circumstantial evidence the chain is being completed or not? 189. In the present case it is admitted fact that five persons of the same family were murdered and no one had witnessed the murder of the five persons. Leaned Trial Cort had found the chain of chain of circumstances were complete and hence, had convicted the accused/appellant. 190. Before we analyze and appreciate the circumstances that have weighed with the trial court, we think it apposite to refer to certain authorities pertaining to delineation of cases that hinge on circumstantial evidence. 191. There is no quarrel with the settled position of law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the chain should be complete then only there will be conviction of the concerned accused person, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hanumant son of Govind Nargundlar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 wherein it has been held that "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 63 of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 192. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bakhshish Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1971) 3 SCC 182 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the principle in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is well settled that the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. These circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 193. The Hon'ble Apex Court while laying down such proposition in the said case has considered the factual aspect revolving around therein and while considering the fact has only found the incriminating evidence against the appellant was his pointing the place where the dead body of the deceased had been thrown which the Hon'ble Apex Court has not considered to be circumstantial evidence though undoubtedly it raises a strong suspicion 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 64 against the appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court while coming to such conclusion has observed that even if he was not a party to the murder, the appellant could have come to know the place where the dead body of the deceased had been thrown. Hence anyone who saw those parts could have inferred that the dead body must have been thrown into the river near about that place. In that pretext, the law has been laid down at paragraph-9 thereof, which reads as under: "9. The law relating to circumstantial evidence has been stated by this Court in numerous decisions. It is needless to refer to them as the law on the point is well-settled. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 194. It is, thus, evident from the close analysis of the aforesaid judgments, the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 65 (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 195. 195. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the said principle again in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 holding all the above five principles to be the golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case as under paragraph-155, 156, 157, 158 and 159 has been pleased to hold that if these conditions are fulfilled only then a Court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise. Paragraphs-155, 156, 157, 158 and 159 of the said judgment read as under: "155. It may be interesting to note that as regards the mode of proof in a criminal case depending on circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a corpus delicti, the statement of law as to proof of the same was laid down by Gresson, J. (and concurred by 3 more Judges) in King v. Horry [1952 NZLR 111] thus: "Before he can be convicted, the fact of death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt: the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and compelling as to convince a jury that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for." 156. Lord Goddard slightly modified the expression "morally certain" by "such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain". 157. This indicates the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted on pure moral 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 66 conviction. Horry case [1952 NZLR 111] was approved by this Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay [AIR 1960 SC 500] Lagu case [AIR 1960 SC 500] as also the principles enunciated by this Court in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71] have been uniformly and consistently followed in all later decisions of this Court without any single exception. To quote a few cases -- Tufail case [(1969) 3 SCC 198] , Ramgopal case [(1972) 4 SCC 625] , Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth v. State of Bombay [ Criminal Appeal No 120 of 1957,], Dharambir Singh v. State of Punjab [ Criminal Appeal No 98 of 1958,]. There are a number of other cases where although Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC] has not been expressly noticed but the same principles have been expounded and reiterated, as in Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration [(1974) 3 SCC 668, 670] , Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 607,] , Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 35, 39] and M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1963 SC 200 : (1963) 2 SCR 405,] -- a five-Judge Bench decision. 158. It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor General relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 801] to supplement his argument that if the defence case is false it would constitute an additional link so as to fortify the prosecution case. With due respect to the learned Additional Solicitor-General we are unable to agree with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus: "But in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation. such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain." 159. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier viz. before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied: (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 67 with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation." 196. The foremost requirement in the case of circumstantial evidence is that the chain is to be completed. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied: "10. ... (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." 197. In Ram Singh v. Sonia (2007) 3 SCC 1, while referring to the settled proof pertaining to circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles about the caution to be kept in mind by court. It has been stated therein as follows: "39. ... in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts." 198. Thus, it is evident that for proving the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it would be necessary that evidence so available must induce a reasonable man to come to a definite conclusion of proving of 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 68 guilt; meaning thereby there must be a chain of evidence so far it is complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 199. This Court, after referring the impugned judgment and adverting to the testimony as recorded in course of the trial of the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution as well as documentary evidence has found that in the present case prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances due to the following reasons: I. A material inconsistency emerges in the prosecution evidence regarding the place of recovery of the deceased persons’ bodies. While investigating officer deposed that the bodies were discovered inside the rooms of the house of the deceased Ravi Manjhi, the inquest reports record the recovery as having been made from the courtyard of the said house. This divergence on a fundamental aspect renders the prosecution version self-contradictory as to the precise place of occurrence and recovery of the bodies. II. There is vital contradiction in the seizure list Ext. P- 7/PW8, pertaining to the seizure of the three axes wherein recovery of three axes are shown, but, it was not mentioned in the seizure list that any of the axes had blood stain though Investigating Officer had stated in his cross-examination that accused had tangi(axe) in his hand which was soaked with blood. 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 69 III. In the seizure list Ext. P-7/PW8 only seizure of ‘blood stain clothes wore by the accused’, was mentioned and no specific description about clothes wore by the accused/appellant is mentioned. But, when clothes were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter no. 127/2019 dated 28.02.2019 vide Ext.P-11/PW8 for examination, surprisingly at Serial No.6 specific description of dress recovered by the Investigating Officer was shown as ‘black colour track suit’ and ‘brown vest’, stained with blood, which was not mentioned in the Seizure list. IV. Thus, the seizure list, Ext. P-7/PW-8, which purports to record the recovery of three axes and blood-stained clothes allegedly worn by the accused from the house of the deceased Ravi Manjhi, suffers from serious infirmities. It has not been prepared in a proper and lawful manner, and the circumstances surrounding its preparation disclose conspicuous manipulation. V. According to the prosecution, following the murder of five persons, the accused/appellant proceeded to the house of the informant, Sidhu Soren, where he assaulted the informant’s mother, Guruwari Majhian, with an axe. The informant claims to be an eyewitness to this assault, in which Guruwari Majhian sustained grievous injuries to her waist and legs, necessitating treatment at M.G.M. Hospital. However, it is noteworthy that the alleged injured witness, Guruwari Majhian, was neither 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 70 examined by the prosecution nor is any injury requisition or medical report available on record. VI. It is further significant to note that the learned trial court has acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to the alleged axe-blow and grievous injuries inflicted upon Guruwari Majhian. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish a vital link in the chain of circumstances necessary to prove that, subsequent to the murder of five persons, the accused/appellant proceeded to the house of the informant and assaulted Guruwari Majhian with an axe, thereby causing injuries to her. VII. The chain of circumstances subsequent to the murder of the five deceased persons also remains incomplete. The informant, in his testimony, stated that upon the accused/appellant approaching with a dawli, he fled and took shelter in the house of his neighbour, Bhagan Tudu (P.W.-9), by closing the door from within. However, P.W.-9 has not corroborated this assertion in his evidence, as he did not depose that the informant had entered his house and secured the door. This absence of corroboration creates a significant gap in the prosecution narrative and further weakens the continuity of the chain of circumstances. VIII. The informant has deposed that subsequent to the incident he sustained an injury on his head, for which he was treated at 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 71 M.G.M. Hospital. However, neither the injury requisition nor any injury report has been brought on record to substantiate that the informant was in fact injured by the accused/appellant after the occurrence. IX. In his fardbeyan, the informant stated that after committing the murders, the accused/appellant set fire to his motorcycle, cycle, and other household articles. However, as already discussed while dealing with Issue No. (VI), the prosecution has failed to substantiate this vital allegation. The absence of credible evidence on this point further weakens the prosecution’s attempt to establish a continuous chain of circumstances against the accused/appellant. 200. Hence, in the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the chain of circumstances remains incomplete, and therefore no conclusive inference of guilt can be drawn against the accused/appellant. 201. Accordingly issue no. (ix) has been hereby answered. 202. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decision has propounded the proposition that in the criminal trial, there cannot be any conviction if the charge is not being proved beyond all reasonable doubts, as has been held in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454, wherein, at paragraph-22, it has been held as under:- "22. The amount of doubt which the Court would entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants in this case is much more than the level of reasonable doubt. We are aware that acquitting the accused in a case of this nature is not a matter of satisfaction for all concerned. At the same time we remind ourselves of the time-tested rule that 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 72 acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits. We really entertain doubt about the involvement of the appellants in the crime." 203. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, 2017 (13) SCC 98, has held at paragraph-26 as under: "26. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court we feel that the High Court has failed to understand the fact that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the part of the investigating agency and the evidence of the witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a basis for conviction. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt." 212. Further, it needs to refer herein the principle of 'benefit of doubt' belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of 'benefit of doubt' can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhagirath & Ors., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96, wherein, it has been held at paragraph-7 as under: - "7. The High Court had failed to consider the implication of the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the complicity of Bhagirath particularly when the High Court found their evidence reliable. The benefit of doubt was given to Bhagirath "as a matter of abundant caution". Unfortunately, the High Court did not point out the area where there is such a doubt. Any restraint by way of abundant caution need not be entangled with the concept of the benefit of doubt. Abundant caution is always desirable in all spheres of human activity. But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 73 jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused." 212 It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 3 SCC 57 has laid down the principle that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, for ready reference, paragraph 6 thereof requires to be referred herein which reads hereunder as :- “6. ------The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. —" 214. It needs to refer herein before laying down the aforesaid view, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has already laid down the same view at paragraph 163 which is required to be referred which read hereunder as- “163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits 2026:JHHC:17828-DB 74 an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.---" 215. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and legal position as discussed hereinabove is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant Chunnu Manjhi @ Putru, beyond all reasonable doubt as such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence requires interference by this Court. 216. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2025 and order of sentence dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandil in Sessions Trial Case No. 196 of 2019, arising out of Chandil PS case No. 23 of 2019, G.R. No. 244 of 2019, is hereby quashed and set-aside. 217. Consequently, the reference is answered in negative. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence as proposed by the learned trial Court which has been sent for affirmation of this Court. 218. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed. 219. The accused be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 220. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 221. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment. I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Date: 18.06.2026 Nibha /A.F.R. Uploaded on: 19/06 /2026